<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Daniel Solove&#8217;s The Future of Reputation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2007/12/daniel-soloves-the-future-of-reputation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/12/daniel-soloves-the-future-of-reputation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=daniel-soloves-the-future-of-reputation</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 05:00:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet by Law Professor Daniel Solove</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/12/daniel-soloves-the-future-of-reputation/comment-page-1/#comment-25226</link>
		<dc:creator>The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet by Law Professor Daniel Solove</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5615#comment-25226</guid>
		<description>[...] Ted Frank writes: &quot;Daniel Solove&#8217;s solution to the potential problem of damning information on the Internet is to open up the libel laws and to remove the Communications Decency Act safe-harbor for site owners. As Amber Taylor points out in a provocative review, one could take this chain more seriously if Solove more directly considered the real-world consequences of such a rule, and the amount of true speech it would shut down because of the potential legal expense of defending speech in the absence of bright-line rules.&quot; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ted Frank writes: &quot;Daniel Solove&rsquo;s solution to the potential problem of damning information on the Internet is to open up the libel laws and to remove the Communications Decency Act safe-harbor for site owners. As Amber Taylor points out in a provocative review, one could take this chain more seriously if Solove more directly considered the real-world consequences of such a rule, and the amount of true speech it would shut down because of the potential legal expense of defending speech in the absence of bright-line rules.&quot; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.276 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-05-27 07:21:06 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
